In reply to SV reX :
I'm thinking along these lines as well.
In reply to SV reX :
I'm thinking along these lines as well.
z31maniac said:The current average is just over 4 years for men, and just under 4 years for women.
Most "office" jobs have to move every so often to get worthwhile raises. Most companies once they have you, you get paltry raises that barely keep up with inflation. I worked at a defense company that they raises were so small and the cost of their healthcare kept rising, that 2 years in a row, I ended up taking home less money than the year before.
I left.
With my current gig the base pay hasn't gone up much, but they have doled out hundreds of RSU's over the years to make up for it.
I heard at Amazon the average is just under 3 years, and that workers start out with pay on the low side (by Amazon standards) with plenty of RSUs to make up for it...that vest just after 3 years.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
make base used to be 160K per year.. now that's changed, but it's still low... its mostly stock..
I think each company should do whatever they feel is best for the overall productivity of their company. If they feel that their employees are more productive in the office, they should bring them back into the office. If they think that they have positions that can be WFH and they can attract more productive employees that way, that is their choice. I do have issues with employees demanding to WFH. It's not their business, it's not their choice. If they don't like it, they can leave. I guarantee that there are more people that think they are good WFH candidates than there actually are. Those will be the ones that lose when the music stops. I see a lot of parallels to those that demanded high minimum wages, only to see their jobs replaced by automation. Those who insist that they don't need to be there to do their work might be right, but what happens when the employer realizes they don't need them at all?
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
If companies do whatever they feel is best for the overall productivity of the company that's their right, but I prefer acting on knowledge and data rather than just feels. I also think that if a company wants to build an image of being "green" but is bringing their workers back into the office, especially just based on management's feelings, both workers and customers should call the company out on that.
GameboyRMH said:z31maniac said:The current average is just over 4 years for men, and just under 4 years for women.
Most "office" jobs have to move every so often to get worthwhile raises. Most companies once they have you, you get paltry raises that barely keep up with inflation. I worked at a defense company that they raises were so small and the cost of their healthcare kept rising, that 2 years in a row, I ended up taking home less money than the year before.
I left.
With my current gig the base pay hasn't gone up much, but they have doled out hundreds of RSU's over the years to make up for it.
I heard at Amazon the average is just under 3 years, and that workers start out with pay on the low side (by Amazon standards) with plenty of RSUs to make up for it...that vest just after 3 years.
When AWS recruited me last year, the recruiter told me base was $140-160k (substantially more than I make now, and just buy myself I make a chunk above median household income) + benefits + RSU's. I only made it to the 3rd round of interviews, but glad I did, as I'm sure I would have been laid off when they started that this year.
Fueled by Caffeine said:Personally.. I'd love a hybrid setup. I have no office near me and would like flexibility to live and lead a team as they see fit.
Demanding returns to office and tracking badge scans like Amazon is doing is just a shadow layoff. My old company, a major aerospace company, is doing the same now..
I would love to go back to a hybrid setup, but they closed the OKC office almost two years ago because it was pretty small. Only 45 or so people.
When I worked for Spirit Aerosystems as a contractor. There were 4 people who got laid off for falsely claiming OT. They looked at badge scans and computer log in's. I can't believe people are so stupid to risk their jobs over a few thousand dollars.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
If companies do whatever they feel is best for the overall productivity of the company that's their right, but I prefer acting on knowledge and data rather than just feels. I also think that if a company wants to build an image of being "green" but is bringing their workers back into the office, especially just based on management's feelings, both workers and customers should call the company out on that.
But isn't that exactly what you are doing now? You don't have any data, you are going off of feelings. You want to work from home. You want to be green at the company's expense. If a business ignores their data and wants to bring people back to the office when they don't need to, they do so at their own peril. But I think that would be the exception to the rule. Most businesses did see the data, and could see if productivity dropped. Or they could see the cliff coming where natural turnover led to the point of many remote workers being inexperienced. If a business could sustain WFH without a productivity loss, it would be in their best interest as they could lower costs and lower turnover. If. The idea that businesses would give that up just out of "feels" tells me that whoever suggested that is not very experienced in running a business.
Workers and customers should call the company out? Who is running this business?
Boost_Crazy said:Most businesses did see the data, and could see if productivity dropped.
I think a lot of businesses did this: *looks at quarterly reports* "We aren't doing well/well enough, the problem must be remote workers! Bring everyone back in to the office!"
The amount of truth in their conclusion varies, obviously there are a LOT of factors at play across any business so I'm not sure how they would isolate this.
In reply to ProDarwin :
** cough cough** my previous employer I'm looking at you.
Boost_Crazy said:
But isn't that exactly what you are doing now? You don't have any data, you are going off of feelings. You want to work from home. You want to be green at the company's expense.
I have seen some data but only from a few companies, it's only a small and possibly biased sample size but it consistently shows increased performance from WFH, including one set from a big-4 accounting firm where the managers hated the arrangement. Data beats feelings, so I say let's see the data. Again I've only been privy to a small selection of company data, but I have yet to see a data-driven RTO decision while I have seen data-driven decisions to continue WFH.
Boost_Crazy said:Workers and customers should call the company out? Who is running this business?
Workers do the actual work at the company and customers give the business their money. Unless the people running the business would be content to give orders to imaginary workers to do work for imaginary customers paying imaginary dollars, they shouldn't just disregard their workers' and customers' concerns.
ProDarwin said:Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:ProDarwin said:I think the absolute biggest advantage to WFH is not being tied to a specific geographic location.
The biggest advantage to me is not commuting and the hours in the car.
Isn't that (part of) the same thing?
RE: Office type - I think it depends on personality type. For me, WFH absolutely requires a dedicated space. I can share my office with my gaming computer, but I can't put it in my bedroom/kitchen/etc. I'm renting an apt. shortly and have paid for an extra bedroom for this reason.
Maybe? To me "geographic location" means they can draw from a very wide employee pool across a region that would be impractical to commute to an existing office. Compared to commuting within a region - Philadelphia in my case - where we have employees up to 70 miles away in almost every direction. For me, the commute was about 30 miles which could take anywhere from just under 40 min to over an hour depending on traffic/time of day.
We now have employees who don't live near any of our existing offices.
If I didn't live alone, I could understand the need for a dedicated work area that would be a "no-go zone" during work hours. But for better or worse, I do live alone, so my only distractions at home are self-generated and having a dedicated work space wouldn't really change that. I'd much rather put in a long day at home so that when I need to take a break for dinner, it's not as disruptive as when I'm living on vending machine snacks at the office. Even before WFH became the norm, I figured out that if a PM scheduled a tele-conference meeting near the end of the day, it didn't matter if I called/logged into that meeting from my office desk or my home desk. So I'd leave a bit early to beat the traffic and join the meeting from home. My boss was fine with it - he did the same thing.
Retention in the engineering world is typical of office workers - around 4-5 years. My company is something of an anomaly as we have a number of employees who have been with the company a long time. I'm at 22 years. A couple are at 30+.
In reply to ProDarwin :
I think a lot of businesses did this: *looks at quarterly reports* "We aren't doing well/well enough, the problem must be remote workers! Bring everyone back in to the office!"
The amount of truth in their conclusion varies, obviously there are a LOT of factors at play across any business so I'm not sure how they would isolate this.
I think that is extremely oversimplifying. I'm sure there is some truth with some companies. But by a large margin overall, if WFH was working, businesses would continue it. I do think some might be better served with a more nuanced approach. My company for example, really struggled when the support staff went WFH. Prior, calls were answered immediately, and if the person who answered couldn't help, someone near them knew the answer. That changed dramatically, to the phone not getting answered and when you finally did get through, a much tougher time finding the person with the answer. This is an internal and external support group. So not only did my calls go unanswered, my client's calls went unanswered, so they called me. So the company brought people back into the office. But they didn't just bring in the problem groups, they brought back everybody. Our project managers worked just fine remotely. They had their own workload and they were a sole point of contact on their projects. They actually got more done, as they didn't get kicked out of the office at 5 to lock up. Overall, bringing people back was a net plus, but a more nuanced approach would probably been best. I believe they moved the project managers to a hybrid approach since. But it's their company, it's their job to decide which is the best approach present and future. If they are wrong, it's on them and their decision to make.
I think there are examples where people cant identify what isn't working. My speculation is that thats where some resort to "collaboration" as the defining need to return.
I work in aerospace, there are about a billion things that changed during the pandemic. WFH is one piece of the pie. Have an issue to address like the one below? Thats pretty clear. But other program schedules, deliveries, etc? There's a E36 M3load that comes into play there.
Boost_Crazy said:My company for example, really struggled when the support staff went WFH. Prior, calls were answered immediately, and if the person who answered couldn't help, someone near them knew the answer. That changed dramatically, to the phone not getting answered and when you finally did get through, a much tougher time finding the person with the answer.
This is where I struggle with it a bit. This happened at the company I work for as well. Not a support group, but similar issues getting ahold of some people. Unfortunately I think management let this behavior go on without addressing it and it spread. I can picture several people on this board running a business that if confronted with the bold part above would simply have a conversation with that person/team/etc. and say "you are not doing your job. Fix it, or GTFO" (paraphrased).
ProDarwin said:Boost_Crazy said:My company for example, really struggled when the support staff went WFH. Prior, calls were answered immediately, and if the person who answered couldn't help, someone near them knew the answer. That changed dramatically, to the phone not getting answered and when you finally did get through, a much tougher time finding the person with the answer.
This is where I struggle with it a bit. This happened at the company I work for as well. Not a support group, but similar issues getting ahold of some people. Unfortunately I think management let this behavior go on without addressing it and it spread. I can picture several people on this board running a business that if confronted with the bold part above would simply have a conversation with that person/team/etc. and say "you are not doing your job. Fix it, or GTFO" (paraphrased).
Hard for me to understand too, at that last WFH job, straight-up neglecting to answer a call would get you that conversation very quickly. I think I missed less than 5 calls the entire time I worked there, most because of software malfunctions and one because a fire alarm went off, and each had to be explained to management.
GameboyRMH said:ProDarwin said:Boost_Crazy said:My company for example, really struggled when the support staff went WFH. Prior, calls were answered immediately, and if the person who answered couldn't help, someone near them knew the answer. That changed dramatically, to the phone not getting answered and when you finally did get through, a much tougher time finding the person with the answer.
This is where I struggle with it a bit. This happened at the company I work for as well. Not a support group, but similar issues getting ahold of some people. Unfortunately I think management let this behavior go on without addressing it and it spread. I can picture several people on this board running a business that if confronted with the bold part above would simply have a conversation with that person/team/etc. and say "you are not doing your job. Fix it, or GTFO" (paraphrased).
Hard for me to understand too, at that last WFH job, straight-up neglecting to answer a call would get you that conversation very quickly. I think I missed less than 5 calls the entire time I worked there, most because of software malfunctions and one because a fire alarm went off, and each had to be explained to management.
Precisely. What Boost is describing is a management problem, not inherently WFH. Even when we were in the office hybrid, I'd say I'd been there about 1.5 years.
My boss brought me aside and said, "Hey lately, you haven't been bringing your A-game like you normally do. Get your E36 M3 together." He's never had to say that to me again. And I'm one of the few getting RSU's and raises in back-to-back years, when others weren't getting either for years at a time. I'm the one that is constantly put on new projects, or testing new software/processes, because he knows I'll get it done, etc.
I think the push to WFH will ultimately be very detrimental to workers.
As previously noted, WFH allows companies to cast a much broader net when hiring. This is a good thing... for the companies.
When they perfect it, they will realize they can cast that net across international boundaries, and they will use this tool to reduce overall payroll by hiring international staff who can, and WILL work for less.
It's happened in my own family. A family member has a business that figured out how to do customer support work with workers from the Philippines. She pays them less than US minimum wage (which is a lot of money in the Philippines), get excellent service, has ZERO office overhead, and they are willing to work around the clock (without US employment laws, like overtime). It's a huge plus for the company, and for the Phillipino workers, but she no longer has any US employees.
Its coming...
Just interviewed with a local company. They mandated work from office universally. Lost 13% of people overnight. Had to rehire and retrain and now have to team build.
In reply to SV reX :
Outsourcing is what you're describing and has been going on for quite a while now. Some companies have returned services stateside after backlash, like customer call centers. We'll see if others learn from it, there were Boeing 737 Max crashes due to software that was written by inexpensive overseas contractors.
In reply to j_tso :
I understand it's outsourcing. The difference is that until now, outsourcing was something only a select few larger companies were able to do.
Now, everyone can do it.
In reply to SV reX :
What limitation was removed? I think companies that could do international outsourcing were already doing it...
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine:
Did the local company take anything away from this experience or did they just keep on trucking with the plan as planned?
SV reX said:As previously noted, WFH allows companies to cast a much broader net when hiring. This is a good thing... for the companies.
I think this is a two way street. If you are a high performer you can interview with companies all over the place as opposed to near you / in geographical areas you are willing to live.
Outsourcing is a concern, but it has been for a while. Having seen it first hand in my particular industry, its rarely as successful as people think it will be.
In reply to z31maniac :
GameboyRMH said:ProDarwin said:Boost_Crazy said:My company for example, really struggled when the support staff went WFH. Prior, calls were answered immediately, and if the person who answered couldn't help, someone near them knew the answer. That changed dramatically, to the phone not getting answered and when you finally did get through, a much tougher time finding the person with the answer.
This is where I struggle with it a bit. This happened at the company I work for as well. Not a support group, but similar issues getting ahold of some people. Unfortunately I think management let this behavior go on without addressing it and it spread. I can picture several people on this board running a business that if confronted with the bold part above would simply have a conversation with that person/team/etc. and say "you are not doing your job. Fix it, or GTFO" (paraphrased).
Hard for me to understand too, at that last WFH job, straight-up neglecting to answer a call would get you that conversation very quickly. I think I missed less than 5 calls the entire time I worked there, most because of software malfunctions and one because a fire alarm went off, and each had to be explained to management.
Precisely. What Boost is describing is a management problem, not inherently WFH. Even when we were in the office hybrid, I'd say I'd been there about 1.5 years.
My boss brought me aside and said, "Hey lately, you haven't been bringing your A-game like you normally do. Get your E36 M3 together." He's never had to say that to me again. And I'm one of the few getting RSU's and raises in back-to-back years, when others weren't getting either for years at a time. I'm the one that is constantly put on new projects, or testing new software/processes, because he knows I'll get it done, etc.
Oh, I definitely agree that this is a management problem. In a perfect world, management would nip this in the bud, get rid of the dead weight, and make sure that everyone is performing as expected. But that is easier said than done, especially in todays climate. It's often hard enough to keep people on task in the office, much more difficult when they are remote. So if they have to babysit a bunch of WFH employees that can't self police, they just bring everyone back into the office. While there are other solutions, the simplist, easiest solution usually wins. I also point out that some responsibility falls on the employees. Much of the success or failure of WFH fell in their hands, and many of them missed the opportunity.
I work with dozens of companies. Experienced engineers, project managers, sales, and other self motivated positions have been fine. Customer service, support, other group positions obviously struggled much more often than not. That's not to say that it's not possible. I met with one company recently, and was shocked that they were still all working remotely. Their service had continued to be very good, there was no indication that they were still away from the office. I asked what they did to avoid the drops in service that others experienced. They said that the owner made expectations very clear, and the staff had a lot of tenure with low turnover. The continuation of WFH was contingent on their performance. They are also based in what was the most locked down county likely in the country, so they put work into the procedures. It also helped that they don't have a large staff.
I know this is long, but I have one more example of how WFH can easily drift into failure. This is a two for one example. Many schools throughout the country went WFH, remote learning during the pandemic. One of my sons was in 5th grade. His teacher could not handle the responsibility of unsupervised teaching, and did the bare minimum. It didn't take long for the students to catch on to the lack of oversight. They figured out that they didn't actually have to do the homework assignments. If they just submitted the blank form, it checked off as complete. The teacher never checked the actual assignments that were "turned in". Weeks went by, word spread. When the teacher finally figured out what was going on, two thirds of the class had been turning in blank assignments for months and had good grades despite doing zero work. One inattentive teacher (supervisor) and dozens of students (employees) figured out how to game the system. This was 10 year olds, adults are much more creative. See the examples above of people "working" two jobs at the same time or subbing out their work.
In reply to pres589 (djronnebaum) :
They are still in the office but quickly pivoted to a generous hybrid setup.
In reply to pres589 (djronnebaum) :
There was no limitation removed. But smaller companies didn't have a need, so they never learned to do it. Now they have.
The example of the company in my family... it's only 20 employees. It was really rare for companies that small to outsource. COVID taught them how.
You'll need to log in to post.
